Outshined_One:I've always been partial to his review of Black Dynamite:

I am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity. Sexy women would "happen" to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard -- the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, I believe. Now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons. There's been such a comeback for the strategically positioned bed sheet, you'd think we were back in the 1950s.

You gotta give props to a respected critic that is that vocal about loving big magnificent breasts. His Rapa Nui review is great.

TeDDD:Tangentially, I feel bad for Bruce Willis. I feel as if he's playing Old Bruce Willis in all his new films and you can almost taste the despair.

I saw the new Die Hard. It wasn't terrible, fairly fun. Definitely had the spirit of the franchise when Bruce Willis jumps off a roof, flipping off the pilot of a Hind-D as he falls away from the explosion and the D crashes into the roof.

Fano:Outshined_One: I've always been partial to his review of Black Dynamite:

I am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity. Sexy women would "happen" to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard -- the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, I believe. Now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons. There's been such a comeback for the strategically positioned bed sheet, you'd think we were back in the 1950s.

You gotta give props to a respected critic that is that vocal about loving big magnificent breasts. His Rapa Nui review is great.

Dr.Zom:North, 1994"I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

Stargate, 1994"The movie Ed Wood, about the worst director of all time, was made to prepare us for Stargate."

Mad Dog Time, 1996"Mad Dog Time is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time. Oh, I've seen bad movies before. But they usually made me care about how bad they were. Watching Mad Dog Time is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line."

B.A.P.S., 1997"My guess is that African Americans will be offended by the movie, and whites will be embarrassed. The movie will bring us all together, I imagine, in paralyzing boredom."

Armageddon, 1998"No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out."

Godzilla, 1998"Going to see Godzilla at the Palais of the Cannes Film Festival is like attending a satanic ritual in St. Peter's Basilica."

Battlefield Earth, 2000"Battlefield Earth is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way."

Crocodile Dundee In Los Angeles, 2001"I've seen audits that were more thrilling."

Freddy Got Fingered, 2001"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."

How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, 2003"Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson star. I neglected to mention that, maybe because I was trying to place them in this review's version of the Witness Protection Program. If I were taken off the movie beat and assigned to cover the interior design of bowling alleys, I would have some idea of how they must have felt as they made this film."

The Brown Bunny, 2003"I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny."

The Village, 2004"To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore. And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets."

A Lot Like Love, 2005To call A Lot like Love dead in the water is an insult to water."

Bucket List, 2007"I urgently advise hospitals: Do not make the DVD available to your patients; there may be an outbreak of bedpans thrown at TV screens."

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, 2009"If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."

The Last Airbender, 2010"The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented."

Seven Days In Utopia, 2011"I would rather eat a golf ball than see this movie again."

Not exactly a shocker that he didn't like Godzilla, what with that really odd cheap shot taken at him and Siskel.

But Stargate? Come on, that's no where near as bad as anything Ed Wood did.

jake_lex:funktilious_j: Clockwork Orange was a good movie about a distopian society. But I love movies about distopian societies. And I agree that Full Metal Jacket was 2 seperate movies. But I like it as well.

But c'mon, he made The Shining, which Stephen King doesn't like, which automatically makes it good.

Full Metal Jacket is not 2 separate movies. Everything set up in the first half pays off in the second.

I mean, the second half of the movie is the confirmation of Sgt. Hartman telling Joker "You're a killer, not a writer!"

Its odd, but no one is mentioning that prior to Gene Siskel's death Ebert played second fiddle. Watch any interview with Siskel and Ebert; Carson, Letterman, morning shows. Ebert was a fat joke who received little to no attention. I remember him literally complaining in an interview with Letterman that no one invites him to their parties after Letterman invites Siskel over for dinner. And even immediately after Siskel's death, Ebert's role on At the Movies seemed secondary to who ever was filling in that week.

But sometime after Gene Siskel's death but prior to his public battle with cancer, Ebert turned his image around and become a well respected voice. I suspect this had a lot to do with two things; wider distribution of his writings on the internet as well as his public political statements.

He was a very inconsistent reviewer. He would enjoy some movies for one reason, and hate others for the very same reason. Sometimes he like derivative stories, other times he hated them. However, I'm sure when you're watching 200+ movies a year as a job you're going to see a lot of movies when you're not in the right mind set. I've certainly seen my share of films on a first go and not liked them and then loved them upon a second viewing.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache:People acting like this guy was a huge loss are lying to themselves. Anyone can review anything they want anywhere. Welcome to the internet, where Ebert isn't and never was essential to the process.

justinguarini4ever:Honestly, Ebert was rarely wrong. His reviews in the Friday papers have saved me from wasting a lot of money on crappy movies over the years.

Everyone has their own taste in music and films, half the videos he praised I thought were total crap. One film "Runaway Train" he said it sucked, I thought was a pretty awesome movie. I went to see the rankings few days ago on IMDB, its now 7.2.

If I think the movie looks interesting, I go see it, if I dont find it interesting i don't go. With ticket prices in movie theaters today, I pretty much wait for Netflick.

/42 is the only movie i will being seeing this year, Its a baseball film - with sex and drugs and bunch of hollywood crap added in

Stridar:Its odd, but no one is mentioning that prior to Gene Siskel's death Ebert played second fiddle. Watch any interview with Siskel and Ebert; Carson, Letterman, morning shows. Ebert was a fat joke who received little to no attention. I remember him literally complaining in an interview with Letterman that no one invites him to their parties after Letterman invites Siskel over for dinner. And even immediately after Siskel's death, Ebert's role on At the Movies seemed secondary to who ever was filling in that week.

But sometime after Gene Siskel's death but prior to his public battle with cancer, Ebert turned his image around and become a well respected voice. I suspect this had a lot to do with two things; wider distribution of his writings on the internet as well as his public political statements.

They were complete equals in their old shows. Who cares who was more prominent in interviews?

ThunderPelvis:Lsherm: ThunderPelvis: Out of curiosity, I just read Ebert's review of Titanic. He gave it a literary blowjob, and that movie was the biggest, most overrated piece of sh*t I've ever had the misfortune of gagging my way halfway through and turning off in disgust. So, you'll have to pardon me if I don't take this list too seriously.

/RIP, anyway. Seemed like a good guy.

At the time, and I think he mentioned this in his review, "epic" movies weren't being done any more. I think he loved it more for the sheer scale of the spectacle than anything else. He even dinged the stock characters if I remember correctly.

gilgigamesh:Even though I love a lot of those movies, the only one I think he is dead wrong on is Fast Times.

"How could they do this to Jennifer Jason Leigh? How could they put such a fresh and cheerful person into such a scuz-pit of a movie? Don't they know they have a star on their hands?"

So, yeah. Wrong.

The argument could be made that the reason she's not a star is that no one realized her potential. Except Ebert.

He had pretty good taste about that sort of thing.

Cameron Diaz is a true discovery in the film, a genuine sex bomb with a gorgeous face, a wonderful smile, and a gift of comic timing. This is her first movie role, after a brief modeling career.

It will not be her last. Her chemistry with the Carrey character holds together a plot that is every bit as derivative as it can be, and when she dances with the Mask the result is one of those scenes when movie magic really works.

I loved ya Roger..You told me to go see Yentl..I, in turn told my older brother to go check it out.I totally forgot about this.Years later I asked him what movie sucked balls most..He did not hesitate.Yentl..I could still see the look in his eyes.30 yrs later he couldnt be more pissed.

wildcardjack:He took a shiat on Fear and Loathing.Of course it's a jumbled mess without a consistent theme. Thats the whole point.

Came here to say the same thing. The review surprised me; I assumed that Roger had read the book.

The book is an incoherent drug-addled mess that is very entertaining.

The movie is also an incoherent drug-addled mess that is very entertaining.

If you tried to impose some narrative structure on the movie, it would have been unfaithful to the source and, like you said, it would have entirely missed the point.

I agree that the movie might not be any fun unless you're read the book. But everyone should read the book. It's a glorious trainwreck. Getting Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp, Benecio del Toro, and all the cameos in on the movie just makes it even better.

HaywoodJablonski:ThunderPelvis: Lsherm: ThunderPelvis: Out of curiosity, I just read Ebert's review of Titanic. He gave it a literary blowjob, and that movie was the biggest, most overrated piece of sh*t I've ever had the misfortune of gagging my way halfway through and turning off in disgust. So, you'll have to pardon me if I don't take this list too seriously.

/RIP, anyway. Seemed like a good guy.

At the time, and I think he mentioned this in his review, "epic" movies weren't being done any more. I think he loved it more for the sheer scale of the spectacle than anything else. He even dinged the stock characters if I remember correctly.